Toward Relational Empowerment

8/13/2019 Toward Relational Empowerment

1/15

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Toward Relational Empowerment

Brian D. Christens

Society for Community Research and Action 2011

Abstract Psychological empowerment has been theo-

rized as a construct with emotional, behavioral and cog-nitive components. Yet, many studies have stressed that

empowerment processes are contingent on interpersonal

relationships. Moreover, theory suggests that power is

developed and exercised through relationships. This article

makes the case that expanding our conceptions of psy-

chological empowerment through the addition of a rela-

tional component can enhance our understanding of

psychological empowerment and the effectiveness of

empowerment-oriented community practice. Previous

research on empowerment is reviewed for relational con-

tent, and additional insights into the relational context of

empowerment processes are marshaled from other concepts

in community research including social capital, sense of

community, social networks, social support, and citizen

participation. A new iteration of the nomological network

for psychological empowerment is presented, including the

elements of a relational component.

Keywords Collaboration Empowerment Power

Relationships Social networks

Psychological empowerment has been a core concept for

community psychology theory, practice and values for the

last 30 years (Rappaport 1981,1987). It can be defined as

the psychological aspects of processes by which people

gain greater control over their lives, participate in demo-

cratic decision-making, and develop critical awareness of

their sociopolitical environments (Zimmerman 2000).

Zimmerman (1995) proposed a nomological network forpsychological empowerment with three components: (1)

an emotional (intrapersonal) component referring to self-

perceptions of ones competence in exerting influence in

the sociopolitical domain, (2) a cognitive (interactional)

component referring to the skills and critical understand-

ings necessary for exerting sociopolitical influence, and

(3) a behavioral component referring directly to the

actions taken to exert influence. While no study has yet

validated this three-factor structure for psychological

empowerment, many studies have examined one or more

of the components, resulting in several well-validated

measures and a growing body of research revealing rela-

tionships between components of psychological empow-

erment (Christens et al. 2011a; Itzhaky and York 2000;

Peterson and Reid 2003), and between psychological

empowerment and other conceptually relevant variables

(Hughey et al. 2008; Speer et al. 2001; Wilke and Speer

2011).

Most studies of psychological empowerment have

focused on the emotional (intrapersonal) component, which

has often been assessed using versions of a sociopolitical

control scale designed to measure perceived control of

ones sociopolitical environment (Peterson et al. 2006;

Zimmerman and Zahniser1991). The sociopolitical control

scale consists of items that assess: (1) leadership compe-

tence (e.g., Other people usually follow my ideas; I am

often a leader in groups), and (2) policy control (e.g., It

is important to me that I actively participate in local

issues; There are plenty of ways for people like me to

have a say in what our government does). Versions of the

sociopolitical control scale have been validated across

multiple contexts. For example, recent studies have vali-

dated measures of the intrapersonal component for youth in

B. D. Christens (&)

School of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison,

1300 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

1 3

Am J Community Psychol

DOI 10.1007/s10464-011-9483-5


2/15

an urban U.S. context (Peterson et al. 2011) and for adults

in an urban Chinese context (Wang et al. 2011).

Less empirical work to date has addressed the cognitive

(interactional) component of psychological empowerment.

Study of the interactional component of psychological

empowerment has focused on critical understandings of

societal injustices and power dynamics (Gutierrez 1995;

Speer 2000; Speer and Peterson 2000). These understandingshave been assessed using a cognitive empowerment scale

(Peterson et al. 2002; Speer et al. 2001) with three sub-

scales addressing (1) the sources (e.g., The only way I can

have power is by connecting with others), (2) the nature

(e.g., Changing a community almost always results in

conflict), and (3) the instruments of social power (e.g.,

Those with power shape the way people think about

community problems).

The behavioral component of psychological empower-

ment has been theorized as participation in the life of a

community, particularly in democratic decision-making

processes. It has been measured using scales designed toassess community participation (e.g., Speer and Peterson

2000; Zimmerman and Zahniser1991). Many studies have

identified positive associations between community partic-

ipation and the intrapersonal component of psychological

empowerment (e.g., Israel et al. 1994; Peterson and Reid

2003; Zimmerman et al.1992). Recent findings from lon-

gitudinal research indicate that intrapersonal empowerment

processes tend to unfold as individuals are socialized

through their participation in empowering community set-

tings (Christens et al. 2011a). Yet, the interactional com-

ponent of psychological empowerment has more complex

relationships with community participation that are mod-

erated by socioeconomic status (Christens et al. 2011b).

Notably, many studies have treated community participa-

tion as a theoretically related, but distinct variable.1

Conceptual work and empirical research concur that

psychological empowerment is a multi-component con-

struct that likely varies across populations and contexts.

The relationships between the heretofore-theorized com-

ponents of psychological empowerment have been shown

to vary according to gender (Itzhaky and York2000) and

race (Peterson et al. 2002). Psychological empowerment

processes are also mediated by setting-level characteristics

(Maton and Salem 1995; Wilke and Speer 2011). These

complicated findings underscore early observations that

empowerment processes tend to unfold differently in

different contexts, sometimes in ways that are asynchro-

nous, paradoxical (Rappaport 1981) and enigmatic

(Zimmerman 1990). Moreover, empowerment theory has

emphasized the notion that psychological empowerment

processes are not confined to individuals in an atomistic

sense (Zimmerman 1990). In contrast, empowerment has

been conceptualized holistically as a context-specific

transactional process (Altman and Rogoff 1987) takingplace as individuals participate and interact within various

organizational and community contexts.

Importantly, then, psychological empowerment is not

the same as individual-level empowerment. Rather, as

Zimmerman (1990) makes clear, psychological empower-

ment is a psychologically oriented variable that has reci-

procal relationships with processes and outcomes at other

levels of analysis. In other words, the theoretical founda-

tions of psychological empowerment have been established

in ways that suffer less from the inherent individualism that

characterizes much of contemporary psychological theory

(Gergen 2009). For instance, studies of psychologicalempowerment have typically been situated in what Maton

(2008) describes as empowering community settings

mutual help groups, youth development organizations,

educational settings, religious settings, civic engagement

organizations, and social action and social movement

organizations. Empowerment research has therefore been

particularly ecologically sensitive, with interrelated bodies

of work at the psychological, organizational and commu-

nity levels (Schulz et al. 1995), and continual appreciation

for context-specificity (Zimmerman1995).

Despite the ways in which psychological empowerment

theory has been sensitive to context at multiple ecological

levels, it has been argued that empowerment theory has

ascribed primacy to individualism, independence, and

control, while neglecting more communal processes and

outcomes that are also important to power and perceptions

of power (Riger1993). In addition, it has been argued that

psychological empowerment has been overly focused on

peoples feelings of control over their lives, while

neglecting the actualization of such control (Perkins2010).

This article proposes an expansion of the psychological

empowerment construct through the addition of a relational

component. It is suggested herein that expanding the the-

oretical and measurement vantages toward the relational

dynamics of empowerment and the exercise of power can

further the study of psychological empowerment and

empowerment-oriented interventions.

Relationships, Power and Psychology

Power is a frequently used word with many meanings. The

question arises, which specific forms and uses of power

1 Whether community participation can be better understood as a

component of psychological empowerment, or a theoretically related

but distinct variable, is a question that remains for future theoretical

and empirical work. For instance, there are likely empowering

behavioral processes and empowered outcomes that are expressed

through more specific actions than aggregate community

participation.


1 3


3/15

does empowerment seek to cultivate? Empowerment the-

ory and empowerment-oriented practice have been oriented

toward the forms and uses of power that enable access to

resources for marginalized groups and the promotion of

social change and community well being (Prilleltensky

2008). The conceptual history of empowerment helps to

explain this orientation. Empowerment initially emerged as

a critical departure from earlier approaches to preventionand intervention that stressed professional-client models of

human service. In this context, empowerment has repre-

sented a move toward collaborative approaches to working

with individuals, organizations and communities to achieve

greater social justice and community wellness (Rappaport

1981). Therefore, although power can be understood as

suffusing all interpersonal interactions and discourses

(Foucault 1982), an empowerment orientation should be

most concerned with the dynamics of power within inter-

personal relations that enable and catalyze effective social

action toward liberation and justice.

These forms and uses of power can be characterized astransformative power, which is exercised collectively,

through organization (Speer 2008). This conception of

transformative power is most similar to power to in

Rigers (1993; p. 182) formulationthe opportunity to act

more freelyyet, it is specifically related to collective

(rather than individual) action intended to alter structural

conditions and dynamics in social, political and community

contexts. Thus, it is both an end in itself, and a mechanism

for increasing well-being at the individual and collective

levels (Prilleltensky 2008). Unsurprisingly, many have

noted that the successful development and exercise of

transformative power depends on relational network

dynamics (e.g., Alinsky1971; Dworski-Riggs and Langh-

out2010; Speer and Hughey 1995). This is not to suggest

that there are not also relational components of other forms

of power that are employed toward the maintenance of the

asymmetric distribution of resources and opportunities

(Lukes1974), which transformative power seeks to resist

and oppose. In fact, the relational components of such

forms and uses of power have received much more

scholarly attention across a variety of contexts. For

example, Watts et al. (2003) draw on Fanon (1963) in

pointing out that oppression shapes cultures that create

dialectically dependent beingsthe oppressed and the

oppressors.2 Domination, violence, and liberation are all

relational processes. The roles of relationships in power

asymmetries have been elucidated in studies on diverse

topics from race and critical pedagogy (Lucal 1996) to

international community development (Groves and Hinton

2004).

These examples of the role of relationships in oppressive

forms and uses of power further highlight the need for

more systematic attention to relational context in empow-

erment theory and the development and exercise of trans-

formative power. In fact, many studies of empowerment

and related processes in community research have beenattentive to the relational contexts of collective action,

liberation, and psychological empowerment processes. For

example, Mattis and Jagers (2001) outline a relational

framework for understanding the ways that religion oper-

ates through interpersonal relationships to stimulate a range

of affective, behavioral and cognitive outcomes, including

involvement in collective action for social justice in

African American communities. However, there has not

heretofore been a coherent incorporation of such insights

on relational context into the theory of psychological

empowerment. Because psychological constructs are often

theorized according to models of affect, behavior, andcognition, a call for a relational component is somewhat

atypical. Indeed, there are other ways to conceptually

incorporate relational dynamics into the existing compo-

nents of psychological empowermentfor instance,

through considering relational elements of skill develop-

ment, self-perceptions, and behaviorsyet, the perspective

that is offered here is that relationships can be considered

as a distinct component of psychological empowerment,

and that doing so has the potential to advance the study of

psychological empowerment.

Interestingly, empowerment theory has been more

attentive to relational context at the organizational and

community levels than it has at the level of psychology.

For example, Peterson and Zimmerman (2004) identify

social support and subgroup linkages as processes that may

influence the intraorganizational component of organiza-

tional empowerment. Likewise, they identify collaboration,

alliance building, and accessing the social networks of

other organizations as characterizing the interorganiza-

tional component of organizational empowerment. Simi-

larly, Laverack (2006) posits a number of relational

characteristics as domains of empowerment at the com-

munity level (e.g., strengthening connections to other

organizations and people, and building equitable relation-

ships with entities outside the community). Relative to

empowerment theory at other ecological levels, then, the-

ory on psychological empowerment has been less explicit

in its orientation toward relational context.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that psychological

empowerment theory has been less explicitly focused on

relationships than empowerment theory at other levels.

More broadly, the discipline of psychology has tended to

view groups and relationships with suspicion. For instance,

2 The distinction between oppressors and oppressed is not absolute as

it relates to individual persons. Participants in unjust systems often

play at least some element of both roles.


1 3


4/15

groups have been studied more often as sources of dan-

gerous conformity than of solidarity or support (Gergen

2009). Relationships, however, are not just external com-

ponents of contexts that humans inhabit; they are consti-

tutive of the human experience, and the construction of

identity (Kegan 1982), the development of cognition,

emotion and language over the life-course (Fogel 1993;

Gergen 1994). While psychology can be generally char-acterized as having a strong individualist ethos (Miller

1984; Prilleltensky 1994), relational perspectives have

existed in the discipline for some time. Some high profile

examples include works by Piaget, Wittgenstein and Mead

(Carpendale and Racine 2011), yet even these are often

misunderstood due to persistent individualistic biases in the

discipline, and in Westernized capitalist culture, more

generally. Efforts to advance relational perspectives in

psychology are ongoing. In counseling psychology, for

instance, relational-cultural theories of human development

have built on feminist theory, as well as the experiences of

women and members of other marginalized groups, toassert the importance of relationships to well being

(Comstock et al. 2008). In relational-cultural theory,

participating and contributing to growth-fostering rela-

tionships has been identified as the goal of human

development.

Yet, participating in growth-fostering relationships does

not, by itself, lead to agency in the sociopolitical domain.

Along with advancing relational perspectives on psychol-

ogy, some feminist theorists (e.g., Kitzinger 1991) have

advocated for greater attention to power in psychology.

This articles argument for the importance of relationships

to the conceptualization of psychological empowerment

rests on a basic propositionthat the transformative power

that empowerment theory seeks to promote is developed

and exercised in and through relationships, as well as

emotional, cognitive and behavioral processes. A similar

proposition played a key role in the development theory

and measures for the cognitive component of psychological

empowerment. Recall that a subset of items in the cogni-

tive empowerment scale assesses understandings that

power is not something that an individual possesses, but

instead is something that can only be exercised through

relationships (Speer and Peterson 2000; Wilke and Speer

2011). Yet, having awareness of the relational source of

social power is not tantamount to participation in

empowering relationships and the associated psychological

processes and outcomes. The cognitive component of

psychological empowerment therefore stops short of cap-

turing the psychological elements of relational embedd-

edness of a person who is developing and exercising

transformative power.

Greater attention to the relationships in conceptualiza-

tions of psychological empowerment has potential to

answer Rigers (1993) challenge to empowerment theory to

focus not only on the traditionally masculine values of

mastery and independence, but also on the traditionally

feminine values of connection and community. It also

offers a possible avenue for incorporating insights from

other feminist scholars, who have suggested that power is

not fundamentally situated within individuals; but is rather

something that emerges in the transactional spaces betweenthem (VanderPlaat 1999). A turn toward the relational

dynamics of psychological empowerment also provides a

potential bridge between the feelings and beliefs that

measures of psychological empowerment have tended to

capture, and the macro-level processes of community

change that involve the exercise of power. Indeed, as

Granovetter (1973) suggests,

The analysis of processes in interpersonal networks

provides the most fruitful micro-macro bridge. In one

way or another, it is through these networks that

small-scale interaction becomes translated into large-scale patterns, and that these, in turn, feed back into

small groups (p. 1360).

Thus, a relational component of psychological empow-

erment has the potential to enhance the connections

between empowerment at different ecological levels of

analysis, thereby diminishing the grounds for a critique of

psychological empowerment as simply a sense or a feeling

that is disconnected from the actual formation and exercise

of power.

Theorizing a Relational Component of Psychological

Empowerment

This article is the first to suggest augmenting the nomo-

logical network for psychological empowerment with a

relational component. Yet, interpersonal relationships have

received attention in many previous studies of psycholog-

ical empowerment. In quantitative work that has taken

relational context into account, relational characteristics

and aspects of relationships have sometimes been treated as

endogenous components of empowerment processes (e.g.,

Maton and Rappaport 1984), and have sometimes been

situated as exogenous to psychological empowerment (e.g.,

Speer and Hughey1996) under the rubrics of a number of

other constructs with relational dimensions that have been

used in community research, including social capital, social

support, neighboring, citizen participation and psycholog-

ical sense of community. On the other hand, in qualitative

and conceptual studies, relational dynamics have more

often been situated as a parts of empowerment processes

(e.g., Kieffer 1984; Kirshner 2008; Russell et al. 2009).

This articles aim is to advance the psychological


1 3


5/15

empowerment construct through the conceptual specifica-

tion of a relational component. Hence, with an eye toward

understanding the elements of a relational component of

psychological empowerment, this section first examines the

extant research on psychological empowerment as it has

dealt with relational context, then draws more broadly on

studies of other relevant constructs and frameworks with

relational dimensions.

Relationships in Studies of Psychological

Empowerment

Although interpersonal relationships have not figured

prominently in psychological empowerment theory, it is

nevertheless clear from previous research that relationships

play critical roles in empowering processes. This has been

most evident in descriptive and conceptual studies. For

instance, Kieffer (1984) identified collaborations as part of

developmental processes of empowerment, focusing in

particular on the facilitating roles played by mentors orexternal enablers of empowerment processes. Importantly,

relationships in Kieffers study not only provide social and

emotional support as participants struggle through their

empowering growth (p. 28), but also help to facilitate the

development of critical awareness and research skills, as

participants become more effective agents of civic action.

Similarly, Pigg (2002), writing about mutual empower-

ment (p. 116) in community development, emphasizes the

interpersonal capacities that community leaders must pos-

sess, including the ability to motivate and guide others in

processes of collaborative or shared leadership. Likewise, in

their study of empowerment among participants in a com-

munity protest of locally unwanted land uses in Northern

Italy, Fedi et al. (2009) describe empowered community

members radiating influence through their social networks,

transferring the skills and knowledge gained in their protest

activities into a range of other settings.

As described earlier, psychological empowerment is

inextricably linked with empowering contexts, which have

distinguishing characteristics that are important for con-

sidering a relational component of psychological empow-

erment. Indeed, unlike the forms of leadership that often

operate in formal organizations such as businesses or

government agencieswhich tend toward the expression

of hierarchy and privilege individual agency over collab-

oration (Carli and Eagly2001)leadership in empowering

community contexts has been described as distributed,

collaborative, and deeply interpersonal (Chetkovich and

Kunreuther 2006; Ospina and Foldy 2010). For example,

Speer and Hugheys (1995) study of empowerment in a

community organizing context emphasizes that social

power is intentionally built through interpersonal relation-

ships. A related study by Speer et al. (1995) showed that

psychological empowerment was higher among partici-

pants in a community organizing initiative that emphasized

relationships than in a similar initiative that placed a

greater relative emphasis on community issues. More

recently, Christens (2010) studied the process of relation-

ship development in community organizing, finding that

intentional one-to-one relationship development broadened

participants networks of relationships, developed newunderstandings of the social world, and strengthened their

commitments to civic involvement.

Descriptive studies of empowerment processes among

young people have produced theoretical frameworks for

youth empowerment in several contexts, and have also

emphasized the roles of relationships. For example, Kim

et al. (1998) detail a youth development and empowerment

approach to substance abuse prevention, stressing the role

of family and non-familial relationships, youthadult

relationships, and a task force that can tap organizational

networks for involving additional allies. Similarly, Cargo

et al. (2003) studied youth empowerment through a com-munity health promotion intervention. Their study found

that relationships were important for motivations to get

involved and stay involved, that relationships between

adults and youth impacted youth confidence, and that social

integration into the community through an expanded net-

work of relationships allowed youth to assume greater

responsibility for mentoring other youth. A growing body

of evidence suggests that importance of intergenerational

collaborations in youth development and empowerment

processes (Zeldin et al. 2005). For instance, Kirshner

(2008), in a study of multiracial youth activism organiza-

tions, emphasized the role of joint work and participation

guided by peers and adults to engage marginalized young

people in political action.

The empirical study that has provided the most unam-

biguous identification of a relational component of psy-

chological empowerment processes is a recent study of

young leaders in high school gay-straight alliances. Russell

et al. (2009) identified three dimensions through which

empowerment was experienced: empowerment through

having and using knowledge, personal empowerment

(much like the intrapersonal empowerment discussed by

others), and relational empowerment (much like interper-

sonal empowerment) (p. 896). In their study, interper-

sonal or relational empowerment included belonging to a

group and associated feelings such as confidence derived

from group membership and solidarity. It also included a

commitment to passing on the values associated with col-

lective activity to future members. Finally, empowered

youth expressed their desire to empower others in their

organization. As one participant in their study said, you

cant be empowered and stay empowered for very long if

youre not connected with other people (p. 899).


1 3


6/15

Relational Context in Community Research

More broadly, relational connectedness has become a

central theme in community and applied social research

through multiple theoretical and analytic avenues. Specif-

ically, several constructs have emerged that have been

more attentive to the relational context of life in commu-

nities than have most studies of psychological empower-ment. Hence, despite the lack of an explicit focus in the

conceptualization of psychological empowerment, insights

can be obtained from other constructs that can be used to

inform an understanding of a relational component of

psychological empowerment. One example is the concept

of social capital, which has been advanced to the front of

the social-scientific lexicon by works by Coleman (1988)

and Putnam (1995). Social capital has a voluminous con-

ceptual history, such that any characterization of the term

applies only to subsets of the literature (see Farr 2004).

Contemporary usage, however, has tended to focus on the

relational contexts of trust, mutual obligation, informationsharing, and norms. Portes (1998) argues that the heuristic

power of the term comes from two sources:

First, the concept focuses attention on the positive

consequences of sociability while putting aside its

less attractive features. Second, it places those posi-

tive consequences in the framework of a broader

discussion of capital and calls attention to how such

nonmonetary forms can be important sources of

power and influence.

This second function of the concept of social capital is

particularly relevant to empowerment theory. In fact,

social capitals conceptual connection between relation-

ships and power may help to explain why the study of

social capital has eclipsed the study of empowerment in

most applied social sciences. However, the tendency of

much of the contemporary work on social capital to claim

or imply causal connections between access to resources

and sociability limits the usefulness of the term for

community researchers, who are typically clear on the

point that differential access to resources depends more

on structural inequalities than differences in sociability

at either the individual or community level (DeFilippis

2001). Moreover, in keeping with the terms economic

origins, many usages of social capital have tended to

emphasize the rational actor who seeks to build social

capital for instrumental purposes and individual-level

gains (Kadushin 2004), rather than the expressive or

collectivist functions that relationships can serve. Like-

wise, with some exceptions (e.g., Coleman 1988) social

capital theory tends to emphasize the benefits of pos-

session of relationships, but frequently neglects the self

and collective efficacy developed by those who become

empowered to act and exercise social power through their

relationships.

Nevertheless, research on social capital provides several

important insights that can help to inform a conception of

relational empowerment. The first is the distinction

between different forms of social capital, namely bridging

and bonding social capital (Saegert et al. 2001). Bridging

social capital refers to sociability in more heterogeneousgroups, while bonding social capital takes place in more

homogenous groups. While both forms generate norms of

reciprocity and trust, bridging is thought to generate more

positive externalities than bonding (Coffeand Geys2007)

and is frequently associated with interorganizational rela-

tionships. Thus, bridging social capital is particularly

relevant for consideration of the relational contexts of

empowerment. In some contexts, bonding social capital is

also relevant to relational agency in the sociopolitical

domain. Coleman (1988) stresses the role of network clo-

sure in establishing obligations and expectations, which are

key to the exercise of power, for example, in communityorganizing.

Another important insight can be drawn from

Ginwrights (2007) conception of critical social capital,

which involves the connections to small community-

based organizations in Black communities that foster

political consciousness and prepare Black youth to address

issues in their communities (p. 404). Unlike much of the

literature on social capital, which lacks attention to psy-

chology (see Perkins et al. 2002), Ginwrights work makes

connections between the development of leadership capa-

bilities and political consciousness and the relational con-

texts in which individuals are embedded. Critical social

capital is a concept that offers insight into the relational

context of critical consciousness, which, in the view of

Freire and others, is often cultivated through critical group

reflection, listening to narratives, and other forms of col-

laborative action (Watts et al. 2011).

Related in many ways to social capital theory, the study

of social networks has extended across the social sciences

as a way of conceptualizing and examining relational

structures (Borgatti et al.2009). Social networks have long

been a topic of interest to community and ecologically

oriented researchers (e.g., Sarason1976), but have gained

momentum as a topic of study as tools for visualization and

analysis have become more commonly available. Recent

contributions to social network theory, methods, and

applications have been made by researchers from an array

of disciplines, including sociology (e.g., Diani and

McAdam 2003), education (e.g., Miller 2011), and medi-

cine (Christakis and Fowler 2008). Recent applications of

social network analysis in community psychology have

included a study of the influence of individual and com-

munity-level networks on community attachment (Crowe


1 3


7/15

2010), and a study of the influence of peer social network

structure on relational aggression (Neal 2009). Methodo-

logically, social network analysis is inherently relational,

differentiating it from other social scientific methods,

which focus on attributes (Luke 2005). Theoretically, a

social network perspective provides a set of concepts that

are focused on relational structure, which potentially

extend perspectives on social support or self-reportedsociability. A social network perspective, therefore, offers

windows into the complex arrangements of relational ties

that exist between people (Coleman 1988) within and

across various settings.

Empowering community and organizational processes

(e.g., citizen participation; community organizing; social

movements) create changes in social network structures

within and between organizational settings, with implica-

tions for the psychosocial dynamics of participants in those

networks. Importantly, both the quantity and quality of ties

are relevant for understanding social network dynamics.

For instance, Granovetter (1973) highlights the role thatweak ties play in facilitating processes from diffusion of

information to political mobilization. Moreover, social

network studies have avoided the more is better pitfall

that plagues some conceptions of social capital. It has done

so by attending to instances in which an absence of ties can

enhance the power of certain actors within a network.

Burts (2001) concept of structural holes demonstrates that

certain actors in some networks have greater power when

their own interpersonal ties span gaps, or holes between

clusters of densely connected individuals. Nevertheless,

strong ties are also important, particularly for building the

kinds of trust that can allow organizations to undertake

actions to change the status quo (Krackhardt 1992). Social

network theory and methods are therefore likely particu-

larly useful tools for understanding the relational dynamics

of psychological empowerment processes.

Several other lines of research in community psychol-

ogy have provided insights into relational context.

Research on citizen participation (Foster-Fishman et al.

2007; Perkins et al. 1990), neighboring and neighborhood

cohesion (Unger and Wandersman1985; Wilkinson2007),

and social support (Shinn et al. 1984) have examined

social, cognitive and affective impacts of interpersonal

relationships and relationships between individuals and

their environments. For instance, Unger and Wandersmans

(1985) conception of neighboring focuses on the social

interactions, affective bonds and cognitions that are inter-

related with neighborhood participation and the formation

of neighborhood organizations.

The most substantial of work in community psychology

has been the study of psychological sense of community,

which has focused on the subjective experiences and

feelings of belonging and identification with a territorial or

organizational community. Sense of community has been

identified as an overarching goal for community psychol-

ogy (Sarason1974). McMillan and Chavis (1986) provided

a definition of sense of community: a feeling that mem-

bers have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to

one another and to the group, and a shared faith that

members needs will be met through their commitment to

be together (p. 9). Moreover, they operationalized psy-chological sense of community, identifying four dimen-

sions: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of

needs, and shared emotional connection. Thus, sense of

community goes beyond conceptions of social support to

include feelings of belonging to a larger social collective

and the confidence that this group will provide one with

social support. Like psychological empowerment, psycho-

logical sense of community has empirically demonstrated

linkages to community participation at multiple levels of

analysis (Perkins and Long 2002). Like social capital,

sense of community involves sociability and norms of

reciprocity. And, like psychological empowerment, senseof community has been studied as a context-specific con-

struct, with different manifestations when residential

blocks, neighborhoods, or organizations are used as the

referent (Hughey et al. 1999).

A relational component of psychological empowerment

diverges conceptually from sense of community principally

by virtue of empowerments explicit concern with trans-

formative power and change. Psychological sense of com-

munity, through its focus on needs fulfillment and

emotional connection, may be a precursor to the actions that

give rise to empowerment (Hughey et al. 2008), including

the relational component of psychological empowerment.

Where psychological sense of community stopsand

where a relational component of psychological empower-

ment beginsis identifying the extent to which different

sets of relationships (including those that cut across specific

territorial or organizational settings) are facilitating the

development and exercise of power at multiple levels.

There are, however, insights from studies of sense of

community that can inform the conceptual development of

a relational component of psychological empowerment. For

example, Sonn and Fisher (1998) use sense of community to

shed light on the ways that mediating structures in

oppressed communities interact with and resist domination.

In addition, there have been suggestions for further devel-

opments in theory on sense of community that might be

profitably situated within a relational component of psy-

chological empowerment. For example, Hughey and Speer

(2002) point out that a sharper focus on bridging gaps and

spanning extra-individual boundaries can enhance the sense

of community concept (p. 70). A relational component of

psychological empowerment might also provide conceptual

space for an expansion of this idea.


1 3


8/15

Synthesis: Augmenting the Nomological Network

of Psychological Empowerment

The preceding sections review of existing community

research that has been attentive to relational content brings

the basic elements of a relational or interpersonal compo-

nent of psychological empowerment into focus. A rela-

tional component of psychological empowerment can beconsidered as the psychological aspects of interpersonal

transactions and processes that undergird the effective

exercise of transformative power in the sociopolitical

domain. The elements of a relational or interpersonal

component are presented in an iteration of the nomological

network for psychological empowerment in which a rela-

tional component has been added (see Fig.1) to the three

components theorized by Zimmerman (1995). The ele-

ments of the relational component have been articulated

based on previous work on psychological empowerment

(e.g., Kieffer1984; Russell et al.2009; Speer and Hughey

1995) and by work on relational context through otherconceptual avenues in community researchsocial capital,

social networks, neighboring and citizen participation, and

psychological sense of community.

Collaborative Competence

Collaborative competencethe set of abilities and pro-

pensities necessary for the formation of interpersonal

relationships that can forge group membership and soli-

darityis an element of the relational component of psy-

chological empowerment. This element can be thought of

as the ability to act as a part of a group exercising

collective agency in the sociopolitical domain. Examples

from previous research include Kieffers (1984) study of

collaborations in empowering social action processes, the

concepts of group membership and solidarity in Russell

et al.s (2009) work, and Ginwrights (2007) work on the

connections within community-based organizations that

facilitate the development of political consciousness.

Individuals with greater collaborative competence shouldnot be expected engage collaboratively in every context. In

some circumstances, they are likely to enter into conflict

with others while gaining greater control over their affairs

(Speer 2000, 2008). Likewise, they may selectively form

either strong or weak social ties (Granovetter 1973;

Krackhardt1992), depending on the context, and may even

maintain structural holes (Burt 2001) in their social net-

works. Yet, in certain contexts (i.e., empowering commu-

nity settings), they showcase their abilities through

developing and sustaining successful collaborations and

contributing to the development of group solidarity.

Bridging Social Divisions

Interpersonal activity across diverse settings that develops

trust and norms of reciprocity across lines of difference

form another element of the relational component of psy-

chological empowerment. This element can be thought of

as the propensities and set of competencies necessary for

building bridging social capital (Saegert et al. 2001).

Examples in previous research include Christens (2010)

study of community organizing addresses the role of

interpersonal relationships in developing new understand-

ings of the social world and strengthening commitments to

Fig. 1 Conceptual model for

psychological empowerment as

a latent construct with

emotional, cognitive, relational

and behavioral components, and

hypothesized elements of each

component


1 3


9/15

civic engagement, Watkins et al.s (2007) study of the role

of intergroup relations across differences in social class,

race/ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation in develop-

ing critical understandings of marginalization and injustice,

and Cargo et al. (2003) study of youth empowerment,

which involved breaking down age segregation so that

young people could participate as citizens. Those who are

more adept at bridging social divisions can be expected tounderstand the roles that isolation and group divisions play

in maintaining power asymmetries. Accordingly, they can

be expected to possess strategies for bridging social divi-

sions, and to be embedded in relational networks contain-

ing others different from themselves.

Facilitating Others Empowerment

Another element of the relational component of psycho-

logical empowerment is the ability and propensity toward

facilitating empowering processes for others. As Gruber

and Trickett (1987) point out in their analysis of a policycouncil in an alternative high school, it is not always

possible for one person to empower another, particularly

when there are stark inequalities between them. However,

in many accounts of effective community leadership, we

see that community leaders often relinquish or delegate

control and decision-making, positioning others to take on

new challenges, and working to guide them in their

development as leaders (Evans2011). Many scholars have

emphasized this element of empowerment processes,

including Piggs (2002) work on mutual empowerment,

Kirshners (2008) account of guided learning in youth

activism, and Preskill and Brookfields (2009) concept of

organic leadership, which hinges on the task of learning to

support others growth through listening and thoughtful

questioning. Likewise, in Turroand Krauses (2009) study

of empowerment in a poor Chilean settlement, sociopolit-

ical development of residents is bound up in the obligations

and responsibilities that residents feel toward other group

members and residents, and the satisfaction derived from

helping them. Those who are more empowered in this

respect can be expected to demonstrate thoughtfulness and

intentionality about group processes, the identification of

the capacities of others, and strategies for providing others

with key opportunities, supports, and insights.

Mobilizing Networks

Interpersonal relationships have both expressive and

instrumental dimensions (Riger 1993). The role of inter-

personal relationships in network mobilization spans both

of these dimensions. With regard to the expressive

dimension, the role of relationships includes providing a

sense of personal invitation to participate (Ospina and

Foldy 2010) and strengthening commitments to making

change on issues that impact those with whom one is in

relationship (Christens 2010). Regarding the instrumental

dimension, studies of community organizing have often

highlighted the critical role that interpersonal relationships

play in motivating and sustaining community mobilization

(e.g., Christens and Dolan2011; Speer and Hughey1995).

Relationships also function as mechanisms for the trans-mission and enactment of cultural and religious influences

on collective action (Mattis and Jagers 2001). Those with

greater relational empowerment can be expected to be

adept at participating both expressively and instrumentally

in mobilization processes within the relational networks in

which they are participants.

Passing on Legacy

The models and strategies that create and sustain empow-

ering community settings (Maton 2008) are conveyed

relationally through mentorship and guided participation,training, and intergenerational collaborations (Kunreuther

et al. 2009). This element of relational empowerment

involves the commitments of more experienced leaders to

investment in the sustainability of their achievements

through growth-fostering relationships with those who will

succeed them. Russell et al. (2009) describe this element of

the empowerment processes of high school student leaders

in gay-straight alliances, who were taking relational action

to ensure that the organization would continue beyond their

own time in high school. Those involved in passing on a

legacy of empowerment can be expected to change not

only behaviorally and emotionally, but also relationally

and cognitively. For instance, in Ospina and Foldys (2010)

study of leadership in social change organizations, leaders

with more experience were seen partnering and collabo-

rating with newer participants, helping them to frame their

shared interests in ways that promoted cognitive shifts.

Importantly, this element of relational empowerment is not

only beneficial for the less experienced members, but can

also facilitate growth and development for those with more

experience, as well as forging greater group solidarity and

capacity (Zeldin2004).

Measurement and Future Directions

The focus of this article has been conceptual development

of an interpersonal, or relational, component of psycho-

logical empowerment. As Zimmerman (1990) makes clear,

empowerment embodies an interaction between individ-

uals and environments that is culturally and contextually

defined. As a result, interdisciplinary approaches, paradigm

shifts, and creative research strategies may be required to


1 3


10/15

fully understand the construct (p. 170). Relationships play

a pivotal role in the interactions between the individuals

and environments involved in empowering processes. In

this article, I have advanced the position that understand-

ings of relational context should occupy a more prominent

space in studies of psychological empowerment. This view

is consonant with calls for moving psychology and social

science past individualism, toward a greater understandingof the dynamically unfolding social and relational pro-

cesses (Emirbayer 1997; Gergen 2009). In relational pro-

cesses, psychological empowerment may be expressed

through collaborative competence, though the formation of

relationships that bridge social or demographic divisions,

through the facilitation of the empowerment of others,

through network mobilization, and through a commitment

to passing on a legacy of empowerment. Attention to these

elements of relational context will bring the study of

psychological empowerment closer to understanding the

development and exercise of transformative power in

empowering community settings.Augmenting the nomological network for psychological

empowerment raises questions about measurement. Which

directions might lead to valid and reliable measures

for assessing the relational component of psychologi-

cal empowerment? Other components of psychological

empowerment have been measured as latent constructs (see

Bollen 2002) through the use of scales in self-report sur-

veys. For example, as described earlier, the intrapersonal

component has most frequently been measured using

variants of a sociopolitical control scale (Zimmerman and

Zahniser 1991). Development of a scale to measure the

relational component of psychological empowerment as a

latent construct is a promising avenue for future research.

Scales might, for instance, include item designed to assess

agreement/disagreement with statements that capture self-

perceptions of collaborative competence (e.g., I am good

at building meaningful relationships with other people),

facilitating others empowerment (e.g., I feel strongest

when I am investing in the people around me) and passing

on the legacy of empowerment (e.g., I have knowledge

and skills that I am passing on to others).

Once measures for relational empowerment are vali-

dated in specific contexts, future research could explore the

associations between relational empowerment and other

components of psychological empowerment, and with

empowerment at other levels of analysis. Community

participation might, for instance, be expected to precede

the development of networks of relationships that would, in

turn, lead to gains in sociopolitical control. In this way,

relational empowerment might be understood as a crucial

step along the path of socialization from behavioral to

intrapersonal empowerment (Christens et al. 2011a). Sim-

ilarly, a relational empowerment might lead to gains in

cognitive empowerment as people actively listen, reflect,

and facilitate others cognitive shifts. Time is an aspect of

context that is important for understanding empowering

processes and empowered outcomes. Longitudinal research

holds promise for understanding key dilemmas in

empowerment theory, including the lack of covariance of

some of the components of psychological empowerment

(Christens et al. 2011b). In-depth qualitative research onempowerment should continue, especially in contexts

where empowerment processes remain relatively unex-

plored. Studies by Kieffer (1984) and Russell et al. (2009)

offer excellent examples of qualitative research on empow-

ering processes.

The potential for empirical studies of relational

empowerment, however, go beyond traditional qualitative

and quantitative research. Relational structures as they

relate to the origins, exercise and maintenance of power

(Neal and Neal2011) represent another promising avenue

for future research. Social network analysis (Luke 2005)

permits inquiry into relational ties and structures them-selves. As discussed earlier, concepts from social network

theoryincluding centrality, reach, weak ties, closure, and

structural holesare potentially relevant to understanding

relational empowerment, but empirical studies are needed

to link these concepts with psychological empowerment.

Depending on the contexts being studied, social network

data might provide insights into relational empowerment.

For instance, Neal and Neal (2011) propose a method for

examining the relative power of actors in a resource

exchange network, and Noy (2008) presents an approach to

power mapping that might be adapted for studies of rela-

tional empowerment. In organizational or community set-

tings where it is feasible, it would be advantageous to

collect whole network data. In other cases, ego-net data

might make be the most logical or feasible method for

capturing relational context.

Further possibilities for research on relational empow-

erment include mixed-methods approaches incorporating

social network analysis alongside latent psychosocial con-

structs, individual characteristics and organizational affili-

ations. These hybrid approaches are perhaps the most

exciting directions for future research, as they could pro-

duce insights into intersubjectivity (Gillespie and Cornish

2010), relational structures, and the ways that different

settings constrain or enable empowerment processes. In

some settings, psychological empowerment may spread

through social networks dynamically, or in clusters, as

research has demonstrated that happiness, smoking, smok-

ing cessation, and obesity do (Christakis and Fowler2007,

2008; Fowler and Christakis 2009). Empowering organi-

zational settings, and the relational characteristics of those

settings (Luke et al.1991), may have differing impacts on

empowering processes over time (Christens and Speer


1 3


11/15

2011). The study of relational empowerment promises to

advance our understanding of empowering community

settings by raising questions not only about setting influ-

ences on individuals, but about reciprocal transactions that

occur as people exercise agency in and through relation-

ships in different community and organizational settings.

The case that a relational component should be con-

sidered in future studies of psychological empowermentshould not be mistaken for a claim that relationships are

necessarily a preferred point of intervention or resistance.

Although promising models for relational interventions

exist (e.g., Surrey 1987), it is also the case that struc-

tural inequities play roles in maintaining interpersonal

oppression. As Grabe (2011) demonstrates in a study of

gender-based violence in a Nicaraguan context, oppressive

macro-social structures are intertwined with interpersonal

violence and control in relationships. When oppressive

structural conditions are altered, there are proximal effects

on gender-based ideology, agency and control in relation-

ships, and distal positive effects on wellbeing and pre-ventive effects on violence. Hence, in each effort to make

change, it is necessary to identify the points of leverage

(Christens et al. 2007) where actions have the greatest

potential to spur change processes. In some cases, like

grassroots community organizing, interpersonal relation-

ships do provide a promising point of interventions for

social change (Christens2010).

Empowerment is more than a conceptual frame and set

of measures; it is also a value orientation for practice

(Zimmerman 2000). As such, it is fundamentally con-

cerned with processes of liberation. As Watts et al. (2003)

explain, liberation involves challenging gross social

inequities between social groups and creating new rela-

tionships that dispel oppressive social myths, values, and

practices (p. 187). More systematic attention to the rela-

tional contexts of empowering processes and settings is

likely to further our fields understanding of the paradoxes

that characterize both disempowering and empowering

processes (Rappaport 1981) and accordingly enhance our

efforts to promote liberation. For example, Mankowski and

Maton (2010) point out that a psychology of men and

masculinity must deal with the paradox of mens power

and privilege and their simultaneous feelings of power-

lessness and victimhood. The oppressive myths, values and

practices that have accompanied the oppression of women

by men have, paradoxically, created a very limited and

unhealthy version of heteronormative masculinityone

that prizes individuality and eschews relationality. Pro-

cesses of liberation from gender-based oppression will

therefore necessarily involve changes in relationships and

new relationships that dispel the myths associated with

oppressive systems and replace them with new practices

and values.

This article has proposed an expansion of the construct of

psychological empowerment through the addition of a

relational component. Although interpersonal relationships

are frequently understood as components of extra-individual

contexts, the position taken here is that there are also rela-

tional components to psychosocial constructs and dynamics.

This assertion is somewhat unorthodox for work on latent

constructs in psychology, which are often theorizedaccording to a multi-component model of emotion/affect,

behavior and cognition. There is a broader argument to be

made for more relational, and less individualistic, notions of

mind and self in psychology (Gergen2009) and in Western

society (Bellah et al. 1985). The scope of this article,

though, has been a relational perspective on psychological

empowerment. As others have noted (e.g., Zimmerman

1995), empowerment is likely a context-specific construct,

such that no one model will apply to all empowering pro-

cesses. Theoretical work on empowerment will therefore

continually be necessary as a corollary to ongoing empirical

research, and the incorporation of a relational componentwill likely be more suitable for the study of psychological

empowerment in some contexts than in others.

The main aims of this article have been (1) to advance the

position that relational dynamics are crucial to a complete

understanding of psychological empowerment as a multi-

level construct, and (2) to work toward identification of

the elements of relational component of psychological

empowerment, based on a review of research on psycho-

logical empowerment and other conceptually relevant con-

structs. As the review of these constructs has made clear,

there is no current shortage of conceptual lenses for studying

sociability. However, empowerment is unique among these

for its explicitly political and value-laden approach to power

and collective action. Situating relational dynamics within

empowerment theory will therefore likely yield insights that

the use of other constructs, whose value orientations are

more ambiguous, could not. In sum, this proposed relational

turn in the study of psychological empowerment has been

offered in hopes that it will open new lines of inquiry with

theoretical, methodological and practical significance.

Acknowledgments This article benefitted from insightful com-

ments on earlier drafts that were provided by Andrew Peterson,

Amanda Harrington, Abra Bankendorf, Constance Flanagan, and theanonymous reviewers for this journal. Thanks also to Victor Maca-

ruso, whose perspective on empowerment in educational settings

helped spur the ideas presented here.

References

Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for

realistic radicals. New York: Vintage.

Altman, I., & Rogoff, B. (1987). World views in psychology: Trait,

interactional, organismic, and transactional perspectives. In


1 3


12/15

D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental

psychology (pp. 740). New York: Wiley.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.

M. (1985).Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in

American life (2008 reprint). Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social

sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 605634. doi:

10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239 .

Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009).

Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892895.

doi:10.1126/science.1165821 .

Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social

capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital:

Theory and research (pp. 3156). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction

Publishers.

Cargo, M., Grams, G. D., Ottoson, J. M., Ward, P., & Green, L. W.

(2003). Empowerment as fostering positive youth development

and citizenship.American Journal of Health Behaviour, 27(Sup-

plement 1), 6679.

Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy, and

leadership: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4),

629636. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00232.

Carpendale, J. I. M., & Racine, T. P. (2011). Intersubjectivity and

egocentrism: Insights from the relational perspectives of Piaget,

Mead, and Wittgenstein. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 346354.

doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.005 .

Chetkovich, C., & Kunreuther, F. (2006). From the ground up:

Grassroots organizations making social change. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a

large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of

Medicine, 357(4), 370379.

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of

smoking in a large social network. The New England Journal of

Medicine, 358(21), 22492258.

Christens, B. D. (2010). Public relationship building in grassroots

community organizing: Relational intervention for individual

and systems change. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(7),

886900. doi:10.1002/jcop.20403.

Christens, B. D., & Dolan, T. (2011). Interweaving youth develop-

ment, community development, and social change through youth

organizing. Youth & Society, 43(2), 528548. doi:10.1177/00441

18X10383647.

Christens, B. D., Hanlin, C. E., & Speer, P. W. (2007). Getting the

social organism thinking: Strategy for systems change.American

Journal of Community Psychology, 39(34), 229238. doi:

10.1007/s10464-007-9119-y.

Christens, B. D., Peterson, N. A., & Speer, P. W. (2011a). Community

participation and psychological empowerment: Testing recipro-

cal causality using a cross-lagged panel design and latent

constructs.Health Education & Behavior, 38(4), 589598. doi:

10.1177/1090198110372880.

Christens, B. D., & Speer, P. W. (2011). Contextual influences onparticipation in community organizing: A multilevel longitudinal

study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(34),

253263. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9393-y.

Christens, B. D., Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (2011b). Social

class as moderator of the relationship between (dis)empower-

ing processes and psychological empowerment. Journal of

Community Psychology, 39(2), 170182. doi:10.1002/jcop.204

25.

Coffe, H., & Geys, B. (2007). Toward an empirical characterization

of bridging and bonding social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 121139. doi:10.1177/08997640062

93181.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital.

American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95S120.

Comstock, D. L.,Hammer,T. R.,Strentzsch,J., Cannon, K.,Parsons, J.,

& Salazar, G. (2008). Relational-cultural theory: A framework for

bridgingrelational, multicultural, and social justice competencies.

Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(June), 279287.

Crowe, J. (2010). Community attachment and satisfaction: The role of

a communityssocial network structure. Journal of Community

Psychology, 38(5), 622644. doi:10.1002/jcop.20387.

DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in community

development. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 781806. doi:

10.1080/10511482.2001.9521429.

Diani, M., & McAdam, D. (Eds.). (2003). Social movements and

networks: Relational approaches to collective action. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Dworski-Riggs, D., & Langhout, R. D. (2010). Elucidating the power

in empowerment and the participation in participatory action

research: A story about research team and elementary school

change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45,

215230. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9306-0.

Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American

Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281317.

Evans, S. D. (2011). Community leadership (unpublished position

paper). Retrieved from: http://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/

executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20

paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdf.

Fanon, F. (1963).The wretched of the earth. New York: Grove Press.

Farr, J. (2004). Social capital: A conceptual history. Political Theory,

32(1), 633. doi:10.1177/0090591703254978.

Fedi, A., Mannarini, T., & Maton, K. I. (2009). Empowering

community settings and community mobilization. Community

Development, 40(3), 275291. doi:10.1080/15575330903109985.

Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of

communication, self, and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Foster-Fishman, P. G., Cantillon, D., Pierce, S. J., & Van Egeren, L.

A. (2007). Building an active citizenry: The role of neighbor-

hood problems, readiness, and capacity for change. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 39(1), 91106. doi:10.1007/

s10464-007-9097-0.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4),

777795.

Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Dynamic spread of

happiness in a large social network: Longitudinal analysis over

20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. British Medical

Journal, 338, 2336. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2338.

Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social

construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2010). Intersubjectivity: Towards a

dialogical analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,

40(1), 1946. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00419.x .

Ginwright, S. (2007). Black youth activism and the role of criticalsocial capital in black community organizations. American

Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 403418. doi:10.1177/0002764

207306068.

Grabe, S. (2011). An empirical examination of womens empower-

ment and transformative change in the context of international

development. American Journal of Community Psychology. doi:

10.1007/s10464-011-9453-y.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American

Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 13601380.

Groves, L. C., & Hinton, R. B. (2004). Inclusive aid: Changing power

and relationships in international development. London:

Earthscan.


1 3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00232http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.005http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20403http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10383647http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10383647http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9119-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198110372880http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9393-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20425http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20425http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293181http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293181http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20387http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2001.9521429http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9306-0http://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591703254978http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330903109985http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9097-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9097-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2338http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00419.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764207306068http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764207306068http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9453-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9453-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764207306068http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764207306068http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00419.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2338http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9097-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9097-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330903109985http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591703254978http://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://www.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/executive-education/leadership-institute/Evans%20position%20paper%20_Community%20Leadership2.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9306-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2001.9521429http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20387http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293181http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764006293181http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20425http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20425http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9393-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198110372880http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9119-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10383647http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10383647http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20403http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.005http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00232http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239


13/15

Gruber, J., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Can we empower others? The

paradox of empowerment in an alternative public high school.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 353372. doi:

10.1007/BF00922703.

Gutierrez, L. M. (1995). Understanding the empowerment process:

Does consciousness make a difference? Social Work Research,

19(4), 229237.

Hughey, J., Peterson, N. A., Lowe, J. B., & Oprescu, F. (2008).

Empowerment and sense of community: Clarifying their

relationship in community organizations. Health Education &

Behavior, 35(5), 651663. doi:10.1177/1090198106294896.

Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Community, sense of community,

and networks. In A. T. Fisher, C. Sonn, & B. Bishop (Eds.),

Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and

implications (pp. 6984). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Hughey, J., Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (1999). Sense of

community in community organizations: Structure and evidence

of validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(1), 97113.

doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1\97::AID-JCOP7[3.0.CO;

2-K.

Israel, B. A., Checkoway, B., Schulz, A., & Zimmerman, M. (1994).

Health education and community empowerment: Conceptualiz-

ing and measuring perceptions of individual, organizational, and

community control. Health Education Quarterly, 21(2),

149170. doi:10.1177/109019819402100203.

Itzhaky, H., & York, A. S. (2000). Empowerment and community

participation: Does gender make a difference? Social Work

Research, 24(4), 225234.

Kadushin, C. (2004). Too much investment in social capital? Social

Networks, 26, 7590. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2004.01.009 .

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human

development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental

perspective. In J. Rappaport, C. Swift, & R. Hess (Eds.), Studies

in empowerment: Steps toward understanding and action (pp.

936). New York: The Haworth Press.

Kim, S., Crutchfield, C., Williams, C., & Hepler, N. (1998). Toward a

new paradigm in substance abuse and other problem behavior

prevention for youth: Youth development and empowerment

approach. Journal of Drug Education, 28(1), 117. doi:

10.2190/5ET9-X1C2-Q17B-2G6D .

Kirshner, B. (2008). Guided participation in three youth activism

organizations: Facilitation, apprenticeship, and joint work.

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 60101. doi:10.1080/10508

400701793190.

Kitzinger, C. (1991). Feminism, psychology and the paradox of

power. Feminism & Psychology, 1(1), 111129. doi:10.1177/

0959353591011016.

Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of

philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.),

Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp.

216239). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kunreuther, F., Kim, H., & Rodriguez, R. (2009).Working across

generations: Defining the future of nonprofit leadership. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Laverack, G. (2006). Using a domains approach to build community

empowerment. Community Development Journal, 41(1), 412.

doi:10.1093/cdj/bsi038 .

Lucal, B. (1996). Oppression and privilege: Toward a relational

conceptualization of race. Teaching Sociology, 24(3), 245255.

Luke, D. A. (2005). Getting the big picture in community science:

Methods that capture context. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 35(3/4), 185200. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-3397-z.

Luke, D. A., Rappaport, J., & Seidman, E. (1991). Setting phenotypes

in a mutual help organization: Expanding behavior setting

theory. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(1),

147167. doi:10.1007/BF00942263.

Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.

Mankowski, E. S., & Maton, K. I. (2010). A community psychology

of men and masculinity: Historical and conceptual review.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(1), 7386. doi:

10.1007/s10464-009-9288-y.

Maton, K. I. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of

individual development, community betterment, and positive

social change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41,

421. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9148-6.

Maton, K. I., & Rappaport, J. (1984). Empowerment in a religious

setting: A multivariate investigation. In J. Rappaport, C. Swift, &

R. Hess (Eds.), Studies in empowerment: Steps toward under-

standing and action(pp. 3772). New York: The Haworth Press.

Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of

empowering community settings: A multiple case study

approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5),

631656. doi:10.1007/BF02506985.

Mattis, J. S., & Jagers, R. J. (2001). A relational framework for the

study of religiosity and spirituality in the lives of African

Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(5), 519539.

doi:10.1002/jcop.1034.

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A

definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1),

623. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1\6:AID-JCOP22901

40103[3.0.CO;2-I.

Miller, J. B. (1984).The development of womens sense of self (Work

in Progress). Wellesley, MA: Stone Center, Wellesley College.

Miller, P. M. (2011). Homeless families education networks: An

examination of access and mobilization.Educational Administra-

tion Quarterly. Published online ahead of print as doi:10.1177/

0013161X11401615.

Neal, J. W. (2009). Network ties and mean lies: A relational approach

to relational aggression. Journal of Community Psychology,

37(6), 737753. doi:10.1002/jcop.20328 .

Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. P. (2011). Power as a structural phenomenon.

American Journalof Community Psychology, 48(3-4), 157167.

doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9356-3.

Noy, D. (2008). Power mapping: Enhancing sociological knowledge

by developing generalizable analytical public tools. The Amer-

ican Sociologist, 39(1), 318. doi:10.1007/s12108-008-9030-5.

Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2010). Building bridges from the margins:

The work of leadership in social change organizations. The

Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 292307. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.

2010.01.008.

Perkins, D. D. (2010). Empowerment. In R. Couto (Ed.), Political and

civic leadership (pp. 207218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D.

(1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of

residential blocks: Crime and community context. American


BF00922690.

Perkins, D. D., Hughey, J., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Communitypsychology perspectives on social capital theory and community

development practice. Journal of the Community Development

Society, 33(1), 122. doi:10.1080/15575330209490141.

Perkins, D. D., & Long, D. A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of

community and social capital: A multi-level analysis. In C. Sonn

& B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community:

Research, applications, and implications (pp. 291318). New

York: Plenum.

Peterson, N. A., Hamme, C. L., & Speer, P. W. (2002). Cognitive

empowerment of African Americans and Caucasians: Differ-

ences in understandings of power, political functioning, and


1 3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922703http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198106294896http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109019819402100203http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.01.009http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/5ET9-X1C2-Q17B-2G6Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793190http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793190http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353591011016http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353591011016http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi038http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-3397-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00942263http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9288-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9148-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02506985http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.1034http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11401615http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11401615http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20328http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9356-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-008-9030-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922690http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922690http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330209490141http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330209490141http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922690http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922690http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.008http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-008-9030-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9356-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20328http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11401615http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11401615http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1%3c6:AID-JCOP2290140103%3e3.0.CO;2-Ihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.1034http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02506985http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9148-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9288-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00942263http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-3397-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi038http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353591011016http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353591011016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793190http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793190http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/5ET9-X1C2-Q17B-2G6Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.01.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109019819402100203http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199901)27:1%3c97::AID-JCOP7%3e3.0.CO;2-Khttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198106294896http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00922703


14/15

shaping ideology.Journal of Black Studies, 32(3), 336351. doi:

10.1177/002193470203200304.

Peterson, N. A., Lowe, J. B., Hughey, J., Reid, R. J., Zimmerman, M.

A., & Speer, P. W. (2006). Measuring the intrapersonal

component of psychological empowerment: Confirmatory factor

analysis of the sociopolitical control scale. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 38(34), 287297. doi:10.1007/s10464-

006-9070-3.

Peterson, N. A., Peterson, C. H., Agre, L., Christens, B. D., & Morton,

C. M. (2011). Measuring youth empowerment: Validation of a

sociopolitical control scale for youth in an urban community

context.Journal of Community Psychology, 39(5), 592605. doi:

10.1002/jcop.20456.

Peterson, N. A., & Reid, R. J. (2003). Paths to psychological

empowerment in an urban community: Sense of community and

citizen participation in substance abuse prevention activities.


jcop.10034.

Peterson, N. A., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2004). Beyond the individual:

Toward a nomological network of organizational empowerment.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1/2), 129145.

doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040151.77047.58 .

Pigg, K. E. (2002). Three faces of empowerment: Expanding the

theory of empowerment in community development. Journal of

the Community Development Society, 33(1), 107123. doi:

10.1080/15575330209490145.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in

modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 124. doi:

10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1 .

Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S. D. (2009). Learning as a way of leadin

Documents

Toward Relational Empowerment